OCEAN CHEMICAL TRANSPORT, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN M. COTTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's decision, holding that a foreign shipowner did not have sufficient contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction. The case involved a merchant marine's suit for maintenance and cure after an injury at sea.
No, the Appellant's contacts with Florida were insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction because the Appellee's suit did not arise out of or relate to those contacts.
[1] A foreign shipowner's contacts with a forum, including port stops, engaging husbanding agents, soliciting employees through a nonresident union, telephoning individuals i…
[2] Specific personal jurisdiction requires a "connexity" or "causal connection" between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's cause of action.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant argues that its contacts with Florida are insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction.”
This states the core argument of the appellant on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee, a merchant marine, sued Appellant, a foreign shipowner, for failure to provide maintenance and cure after an injury sustained at sea. The tr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Provide Maintenance And Cure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is on appeal from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ap-pellee, a merchant marine, filed suit against Appellant, a foreign shipowner, for failure to provide maintenance and cure following an injury Appellee sustained at sea while working on Appellant’s ship. The trial court ruled that it had “specific” personal jurisdiction over Appellant.
Appellant argues that its contacts with Florida are insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
We agree and hold that Appellant’s contacts with Florida, i.e., port stops at the direction of the ship’s charterer, engaging husbanding agents, soliciting Florida employees through a nonresident union, telephoning Appellant when he was in Florida, and maintenance of an escrow account in order to ship pollutants in the jurisdiction, do not satisfy the requirements for specific personal jurisdiction. American Overseas Marine Corp. v. Patterson, 632 So. 2d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 641 So. 2d 1346 (Fla.1994); Price v. Point Marine, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Spanier v. Suisse-Outremer Reederei A.G., 557 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Ap pellant’s activities do not satisfy the “connexity” or “causal connection” requirement of specific personal jurisdiction because Appel-lee’s suit does not arise out of or relate to Appellant’s contacts with Florida. American Overseas, supra, at 1127 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 n. 8, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)); R.F. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)(“[T]he relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation ... [is] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction.”).
This conclusion is supported by the instant trial court’s failure to identify a causal connection that would support specific jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for dismissal.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glovegold Shipping v. Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening, 791 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…risdiction over the defendant. See id. Heli-cópteros does not delegitimize our analysis of specific personal jurisdiction. TSC also invites us to construe two decisions of this court as supporting dismissal. See Ocean Chem. Transp., Inc. v. Cotton, 702 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (finding port stops at the direction of the ship’s charterer, engaging husbanding agents, soliciting Florida employees, and maintenance of an escrow account to ship pollutants into the jurisdiction do not satisfy the requirements…
-
Ware v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 258 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977)
- Am. Overseas Marine Corp. v. Patterson, 632 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Price v. Point Marine, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Reinhold Spanier v. Suisse-Outremer Reederei A.G., 557 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)